agentleFS
momentmakermomentmaker/kaijutsu/skills/core/verification-before-completion/SKILL.md

verification-before-completion

Skill3 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Hard gate before claiming work is complete. Use when about to say "done", "fixed", "passing", "ready to commit", "ready to merge" — requires running the verification command FRESH and reading actual output before any success claim. Composed by polish, incremental-implementation, and pr-review.

189 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use chinese-code-review, chinese-commit-conventions and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-code-review

    中文代码审查规范——在保持专业严谨的同时,用符合国内团队文化的方式给出有效反馈

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • Leodorareluctant259Skill

    chinese-commit-conventions

    中文 Git 提交规范 — 适配国内团队的 commit message 规范和 changelog 自动化

    Also in 8 projects that use this

  • obraSkill

    diagnosing-superpowers

    Use when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.

    Also in 20 projects that use this

  • jh941213Skill

    docs-ci

    문서 CI(링크·OpenAPI lint·breaking 게이트·mermaid 검증)나 문서 드리프트 감지(docs.yaml 신선도 검사)를 설치하거나 돌릴 때 사용. 문서 내용 작성은 docs-architecture·docs-interfaces·docs-manuals.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • jh941213Skill

    docs-interfaces

    API·이벤트 인터페이스 문서(OpenAPI·swagger·AsyncAPI 명세, 엔드포인트 레퍼런스, API 구성도·시퀀스, API CHANGELOG)를 만들거나 코드와 맞출 때 사용. 시스템 구성도는 docs-architecture, API 설계 원칙은 api-design-principles.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • +3 more from Leodorareluctant259
  • +4 more from jh941213

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 177 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 10

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Not a finding-triage gate.

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    Not human ceremony layered on agent output.

    line 17
  3. Distinctive:

    Not a process for everything.

    line 18
  4. Distinctive:

    Before saying "tests pass" / "linter clean" / "build succeeds" / "bug fixed"

    line 26
  5. Distinctive:

    Before opening / merging a PR

    line 28
  6. Very specific:

    After auto-fixers (eslint --fix, prettier, etc.) — tools fail silently more than you think

    line 29
  7. Very specific:

    When polish or incremental-implementation says "clean" — convergence ≠ correctness

    line 30
  8. Distinctive:

    After ANY agent (subagent, swarm, etc.) reports success — verify independently

    line 31
  9. Distinctive:

    If you catch yourself typing any of these, STOP and re-verify:

    line 66
  10. Distinctive:

    When emitting the claim, attach the evidence:

    line 78
  11. Distinctive:

    If verification fails, state truth + evidence:

    line 92
  12. Distinctive:

    Don't perform this gate on tasks that have no executable artifact.

    line 118

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 177 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

verification-before-completion

Adapted from obra/superpowers/skills/verification-before-completion under the MIT License. Copyright (c) Jesse Vincent. Modifications by kaijutsu maintainers — pared down for kaijutsu's "trust the swarm" stance and reframed as a primitive other skills compose.

A discipline gate. Stops you from claiming work is done based on vibes. Forces evidence.

This skill is composed by other skills via deps.skills. Also directly invocable when you catch yourself about to say "should pass".

What this is NOT

  • Not a finding-triage gate. v0.7 quality fingerprinting + multi-agent swarm consensus already handles that.
  • Not human ceremony layered on agent output. The agents are trusted; what we're verifying is YOUR CODE, not the agents' findings.
  • Not a process for everything. A README typo fix doesn't need a verification gate. Use judgment — see "When to skip" below.

What this IS

A short checklist between "I think this is done" and "I'm telling the user it's done". The cost of a stale claim is high: lost trust, wasted review cycles, debugging time tomorrow on bugs you said were fixed today.

When to invoke

  • Before saying "tests pass" / "linter clean" / "build succeeds" / "bug fixed"
  • Before committing
  • Before opening / merging a PR
  • After auto-fixers (eslint --fix, prettier, etc.) — tools fail silently more than you think
  • When polish or incremental-implementation says "clean" — convergence ≠ correctness
  • After ANY agent (subagent, swarm, etc.) reports success — verify independently

When to skip

  • Pure prose / comment / doc edits with no executable impact
  • Research / explore / read-only work
  • The verification command itself is what's being changed (chicken-and-egg — note this and let user verify)

The gate

BEFORE claiming any status:
  1. IDENTIFY: What command proves this claim?
  2. RUN: Execute the FULL command, fresh, this turn (not "I ran it earlier")
  3. READ: Full output. Check exit code. Count failures.
  4. VERIFY: Does output confirm the claim?
       NO  → state actual status with evidence
       YES → state claim WITH evidence
  5. ONLY THEN: emit the claim

Claim → command mapping

ClaimVerifying commandNot sufficient
Tests passfull test run (go test ./..., pytest, etc.) → 0 failures"I ran it earlier", "should pass"
Linter cleanfull linter run → 0 errorspartial check, single-file run
Build succeedsfull build → exit 0linter passing, types check
Bug fixedregression test for the original symptom passescode changed, "looks right"
Regression test worksred-then-green cycle verifiedgreen on first run only
Subagent succeededgit diff shows expected changessubagent's "success" report
Spec satisfiedline-by-line against spec acceptance criteriatests passing

Forbidden phrasings (you're rationalizing)

If you catch yourself typing any of these, STOP and re-verify:

  • "should work now"
  • "probably passes"
  • "seems to work"
  • "I'm confident"
  • "linter is happy" (linter ≠ tests ≠ build)
  • "the agent said it succeeded"
  • any victory phrase ("Great!", "Perfect!", "Done!") before the verify command ran

Output format

When emitting the claim, attach the evidence:

✅ ran: go test ./internal/findings/...
   result: ok 6/6 tests · 0.4s
   "verification: tests pass"

vs the broken pattern:

❌ "All tests pass!" (no command shown, no output, vibes only)

If verification fails, state truth + evidence:

❌ ran: go test ./internal/findings/...
   result: 1 failure (TestRecordRun_RequiresMeta/missing_RunID)
   "verification failed: 1 test broken; debugging next"

Composition

polish invokes this AFTER the convergence-detect "clean" signal, BEFORE emitting "polish complete". Catches the silent-fail tail where the loop converges but tests are actually broken.

incremental-implementation invokes this transitively (via its polish dep) per slice, before marking the slice shippable.

pr-review does NOT yet compose this primitive — listed as a v0.7.x candidate. The natural integration is a pre-swarm local-diff sanity check ("claim: my changes compile and tests pass") to save swarm budget on broken builds, but the pr-review skill hasn't been wired yet.

The kaijutsu-specific edge

Pair with polish's convergence loop:

  • Convergence-detect: "no new signal" — agents stopped finding issues
  • Verification gate: "but the code still has to actually run"

Both can be true OR false independently. Verification catches the case where polish converged on a nice-looking diff that doesn't compile. Cheap, high-leverage.

Anti-pattern: overusing this

Don't perform this gate on tasks that have no executable artifact. Don't add fake verification commands ("ran: cat README.md"). The gate's value is preventing real claim-vs-reality drift; ceremonial application dilutes the signal.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.